document resume ed 396 765 ir 055 938 alithor lorenzen ... · that some of these same problems...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 396 765 IR 055 938

AlITHOR Lorenzen, Michael G.TITLE .

Security Issues of Academic Libraries.PUB DATE Jun 96,-1TE 56p.; Master's Seminar Paper, Ohio University.t,.3 TYPE Dissertations/Theses Undetermined (040)

Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Libraries; Books; Cost's; Higher Education;

*Library Collections; Library Instruction; *LibraryPersonnel; Periodicals; Problems; School Security;School Vandalism; Stealing; *Users (Information)

IDENTIFIERS Book Losses; Book Mutilation; *Library Security

ABSTRACTThis study examines and evaluates security issues in

academic libraries and examines how educators in institutions ofhigher learning deal with them. Security issues include: the theft oflibrary materials, the mutilation or vandalism of library materials,dealing with deranged and/or disruptive patrons, and assaults onlibrary patrons and staff. The purpose of the study is to develop anintegrated approach to dealing with security issues of academiclibraries. This is significant in a time when higher education isbeing forced to contain costs. Replacing missing and mutilatedlibrary items is expensive as is dealing with lawsuits resulting fromvictims of criminal activity in libraries. While there are multiplecauses for security problems, studies have shown that most mutilationand theft is done by patrons who do not understand replacement costs,do not care about the needs of others, and do not know they arecommitting a crime when they mutilate or steal from the library.Various authors have urged educating this type of patron to cut downon security problems. Library staff cause some problems by notknowing what security problems are and how to deal with them. Theyalso do not always enforce the rules consistently, which may makesecurity problems worse. Librarians are taking steps to stial withsecurity issues by installing electronic security systems, addressingareas such as building design, using identification cards, andeducating patrons. (Contains 64 references.) (Author/SWC)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made* from the original document.***********************************************************************

SECURITY ISSUES OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

A Seminar Paper Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Education

Ohio University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Education

by

Michael G. Lorenzen

June, 1996

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION(Axe ol Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)O This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it.

O Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Michael Lorenzen

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

This seminar paper has been approved

for the School of Applied Behavioral Sciences

and Educational Leadership and

the College of Education

by

Assistant Professor, School of Applied Behavioral Sciences

and Educational Leadership

1?cL (_(Cc_2 L-/6_,r1/cL6

Director, School of Applied avioral Sciences

and Educational Leadership

DEDICATION

I dedicate this seminar paper to my wife, Julie

Lorenzen. I appreciate her understanding and patience with

me through the time it has taken to earn this degree. With

her love, all things are possible.

I also dedicate this paper to my parents, Gary and

Kiplyn Lorenzen. Their financial support allowed me to earn

my Master's Degree in Library Science which resulted in me

getting my job with Ohio University. As I earned this

second master's on fee waivers, this degree is also a result

of their generosity since the fee waivers were dependent on

my employment with Ohio University.

Further, I dedicate this paper to Dr. Frances Pearson.

Without her help, this paper would not have been possible.

Dr. Pearson is one of the strengths of the Ohio University

College of Education. Her coming departure from the College

of Education is indeed a major loss to Ohio University.

Finally, I dedicate this seminar paper to my cat Simba.

Many times over the last several years, I have sat at my

computer with a beer in one hand and a kitten purring on my

lap typing desperately at the last minute to finish yet

another paper. Without the unconditional love of my kitten,

academic success seems somewhat hollow. Every graduate

student needs a cat.

iii

Table of Contents

PageChapter One: Introductiom 1

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 3

Research Questions 3

Purpose of the Study 3

Delimitations 4

Limitations 4

Definition of Terms 4

Methodology 5

Organization of the Study 6

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 8

Introduction 8

Security Issues in Academic Libraries 8

Causes of Security Issues in Academic Libraries ....12

Responses to Security issues in Academic Libraries 17

Summary 23

Chapter Three: Analysis of the Literature 24

Introduction 24

Security. Issues in Academic Libraries 24

Causes of Security Issues in Academic Libraries 29

Responses to Security Issues in Academic Libraries 33

Chapter Four: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 38

Introduction 38

Summary 38

IV

Conclusions 41

Recommendations 42

References 44

V

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Background

The academic campus is not always a safe and secure

place. Violence and property crime can and do occur.

Academic libraries are no exception and they are subject to

a wide variety of security concerns. There are many

potential problems in security that an academic library

face.

Theft of library material is an ancient problem. The

looting of the Great Library in Alexandria by soldiers of

the Prophet in the Seventh Century is the first recorded

example. Stuart (1988) did a historical study on Europe

dealing with book theft. The study focused on Dr. Pilcher,

a well known scholcr, who also stole extensively from the

Imperial Russian Library in the 19th Century. Stuart also

studied some earlier book thieves as well. Seleth (1991)

also reported on a historical book thief. Not surprisingly

due to all the Nigerian research on this topic, Lincoln and

Lincoln (1986) showed that theft and mutilation were an

international problem as well as a historical one.

As public institutions, public libraries have

encountered many of the problems that exist in today's

society. The criminal use of public libraries (Anderson,

1986), the theft of public library materials (Gothberg,

1987), and obnoxious patron behavior (Lincoln, 1984) have

2

all been thoroughly documented. Thus, it can be surmised

that some of these same problems exist in academic

libraries.

Many academic libraries are under state control and are

required to provide access to the general public. Private

institutions of higher education usually do not prevent the

gemtral public from entering their library collections.

According to Brand (1980), academic libraries are vulnerable

to security risks from the public population. Further,

members of the academic community, both students and

faculty/staff, can pose security problems.

Security issues in academic libraries are numerous.

These include: the theft of library materials, the

mutilation or vandalism of library materials, dealing with

deranged and/or disruptive patrons, and assaults on library

patrons and staff. Institutions of higher education spend

millions of dollars to build library book and periodical

collections. Patrons can do considerable damage to these

collections by stealing from them or mutilating items in the

collection. Patrons can also disrupt the library environment

by harassing patrons and staff or committing illegal acts

(Lorenzen, 1993).

Academic libraries have responded in many ways to these

threats to the collection and to the people who use and work

in the library. Increased training of staff to deal with

these issues has been one way. Increasing the presence of

8

3

security personnel in the library has been another. By far

the biggest response has been the installation of electronic

security devices to prevent the unauthorized circulation of

library materials (Olsen & Ostler, 1985).

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study is to examine and evaluate

the different security issues that academic libraries deal

with and examine how different institutions of higher

education are dealing with them.

Research Questions

The following research questions are developed to

ascertain and examine the problem of security issues in

academic libraries:

1) What type of security problems exist in the

libraries of institutions of higher

education?

2) What are the causes of the security problems

in the libraries of the institutions of

higher education?

3) How are libraries of institutions of higher

education cAealing with the securicy problems?

Purpose and Significance of the Study

The purpose of this study is to develop an integrated

approach to dealing with security issues of academic

libraries. These issues are diverse and difficult to deal

with. However, this study will attempt to provide valuable

4

insight into security issues for academic libraries so that

educators working in higher education and libraries will be

better able to deal with these issues. This has great

significance in a time when higher education is being forced

to contain costs. Replacing missing and mutilated library

items is expensive as is dealing with lawsuits resulting

from victims of criminal activity in libraries.

Delimitations

The scope of this study incorporates research studies

that use empirical research. However, analysis of methods

and procedures used in these studies is only going to be

briefly touched on if it is mentioned at all. Rather,

results and a discussion of these results will be included.

Much of the research done on the topic of library

security issues has been done focusing on public libraries.

This study will at times refer to some of this research.

However, this study is concentrating on higher education and

no attempt is being made to include a comprehensive or even

extensive listing on research dealing with public library

security.

Limitations

This limitation of this study is that research in

academic library security first began in the 1970's.

Therefore, the research base is limited to the last several

decades. Security issues have always existed in the

libraries of institutions of higher education but only

5

recently has the importance of doing research in this area

been recognized.

Definition of Terms

The study defines some critical terminology that is

associated with academic library security issues:

Academic library. The library of any educational institution

that operates at the post-secondary level.

Disruptive Behavior. Any activity on the part of a patron

that interferes with the educational mission of the library.

This behavior is not always illegal.

Electronic Security System. Lly method of preventing the

unauthorized circulation of library materials that relies on

mechanical devices that detect when unauthorized library

materials are being removed from the library.

Mutilation of Library Materials. The deliberate cutting up

or vandalism of an item in the library collection. This can

mean the cutting up of material to remove part of it from

the library collection. It can also mean yandalism of

library materials so that other may not use the material or

the defacing of such material to make a statement.

Plating. The theft of valuable plates from old maps and

atlases.

Security Problems. Any activity that the educators that

administer or work in library consider to be inappropriate

activity. This includes any violation of the law as well as

1 i

6

activities that are not illegal but are found to be

disruptive to the academic library environment.

Theft of Library Materials. The unauthorized circulation of

any material in the library.

Methodology

Articles cited in this study were retrieved from either

the index Library Literature or ERIC. Subject headings

searched under included library security, mutilation of

library materials, theft of library materials, disruptive

patrons, and crime in libraries. A search was done in the

central catalog of OhioLINK on the apprziptiate subjects as

xell. All research was conducted at the Zanesville Campus

Library of Ohio University and the Muskingum Area Technical

College.

Organization of the Study

The study begins with Chapter One and describes the

topic of security issues in academic libraries. More

specifically, Chapter One which introduces the study

includes: background, statement of the problem, research

questions, purpose of the study, delimitations, limitations,

definition of terms, methodology of the study and

organization of the study. Next, Chapter Two reviews the

literature of security issues in academic libraries. Using

the same headings as Chapter Two, Chapter Three analyzes the

literature review to give educators in academic libraries

Gtrategies to deal with security issues. Finally, the study

'7

is s'immarized, conclusions are drawn and recommendations are

proposed that include further investigation suggestions and

recommendaeons for practice.

8

CHAPTER TWO

Review of the Literature

Introduction

Chapter One dealt with the problem of the study which

is the security issues facing academic libraries. Chapter

Two contains a review of the literature organized into the

following headings; Security Issues in Academic Libraries,

Causes of Security Issues in Academic Libraries, and

Responses to Security Issues in Academic Libraries. An

analyses of this literature will be done in Chapter Three.

Research on academic library security tends to focus on

three areas. The first is, who causes the security problems

in academic libraries? Researchers have looked at patrons,

staff, faculty, and institutional outsiders in this regard.

The second is, what type of security problems do people

cause in academic libraries? This type of research runs

from studies of violent crime to disruptive patrons. The

third is, what is the method of preventing security problems

from occurring? These types of studies look at staff

training, electronic security systems, and the concept of

closed stacks. Many researchers have looked at more than

one area in their studies.

Security Issues in Academic Libraries

Mutilation

Hendrick and Murfin (1974) theorized that academic

libraries were the most vulnerable kind of library to

14

9

periodical mutilation. They studied a large academic

research library to determine its periodical mutilation rate

and they discovered that the library had a mutilation rate

of 9% for periodicals. That was a drop of 23% from a

previous study of the same library. Between the studies, an

electronic security system had been installed. It was

concluded that the security system was having an influence

on patron mutilation activity.

Lorenzen (1993) did a study of over 100 academic

libraries in Ohio to determine the extent of security

problems. He discovered that the periodical mutilation rate

for the state was only 2.33%. However, the rate was higher

for university libraries and 62.5% of university libraries

considered periodical mutilation to be a large threat to the

library collection. In contrast, not a single seminary

library in the state considered this a problem.

Book mutilation was reported by Taylor (1981). He was

disturbed by the high incidence of book mutilation and

vandalism. In particular, he was concerned by the

prevalence of underlining and highlighting in library books

and by the editorial comments that also were appearing in

library books. He compared this damage to putting scratches

on a record. Roberts (1984) reported the same problems,

concentrating on book abuse as it related to bookmarks.

Interestingly, Roberts believed that the lack of bookmarks

can lead to book mutilation.

15

10

Theft

The special collections of libraries are vulnerable to

theft and mutilation. Valuable and irreplaceable materials

are usually stored in these collections. As such, these

collections are vulnerable to theft from professional

thieves. Otness and Otness (1988) looked at the problem of

the theft of older maps from libraries. The two described

what they called going plating which was the theft of

valuable plates from old maps and atlases. Several steps

were listed to frustrate thieves. It was speculated that

most of the theft of plates was done by professional

thieves. Ragains (1991) also reported on this problem.

Bahr (1989) concentrated on internal theft from a

library. Not all theft is perpetuated by patrons. Some

library employees take material from the library without

properly circulating it. As library employees know how to

defeat the security system, this is, according to Bahr, one

of the hardest types of theft to prevent.

O'Neill and Boomgaarden (1995) reported on book

deterioration and loss in Ohio libraries. It was discovered

that nearly 12% of books in 100 Ohio libraries were missing.

This compared with a little more than 3% that were unusable

due to deterioration. Therefore, it appeared that book

theft was a bigger problem for libraries than book

deterioration.

16

11

People

Patrons can also cause security problems by their

behavior in the library, even if they are not mutilating or

stealing. Brashear, Malone & Thorton-Jaringe (1981)

conducted a study of all of the libraries in the state of

Illinois. They discovered widespread problems with patrons

acting inappropriately. They also found that publii.

libraries have more problems with this issue than do

academic libraries.

Grof (1984) focused on the problem of the difficult

patron. He discussed several types of difficult patrons

including ones who were drunk, addicted to drugs, mentally

disturbed, or were juveniles without supervision. Grof

suggested placing the emphasis on the denial of rights to

patrons using the library without disruption rather than the

denial of rights to the difficult patron.

Delph (1980) wrote a paper on preventing public sex in

the academic library setting. Delph was concerned about the

tendency of certain groups (community patrons, using the

library for homosexual acts, and students) to use library

facilities to engage in sexual activities. He called for an

awareness of sexual activities in libraries. It was argued

that patterns occur in libraries and that librarians can

predict when and where sexual activity is likely to occur

(i.e. in the evening in the fourth floor restrooms, etc.)

By patrolling these places and times, and by letting

12

suspicious patrons know they are being watched, librarians

can make the library an unappealing location for sexual

activity.

Elliott (1982) wrote about the types of patrons who can

cause problems. This list included those with mental

problems such as the schizophrenic, the paranoid, and the

alcoholic. She also noted criminal types such as

exhibitionists, voyeurs, and child molesters. Further,

Elliott considered other potentially disturbed patrons such

as the elderly, children, and angry people.

Anderson (1986) focused on the situation of a single

patron who makes it difficult for librarians to do their

jobs without specifically doing anything illegal. The case

highlighted dealt with a patron who followed librarians

around at all times including when other patrons were being

helped, talking about nothing, making it difficult for the

librarians to do their jobs.

Causes of Security Issues in Academic Libraries

Mutilation

Hendrick and Murfin (1974) distributed a questionnaire

at Kent State University to discover why students mutilated

periodicals. It was discovered that mutilators had a less

favorable attitude towards the library than non-mutilators.

The two concluded that publicity about the crime of

mutilation was probably the answer to the problem. Hendrick

16

13

and Murfin (1975) published the same research with the same

conclusions a year later.

Weiss (1981) looked at why students steal and mutilate

books and periodicals. A questionnaire was distributed to

students at a large urban university library. It was

discovered that pressure to succeed in a high pressure

academic environment seemed to motivate most theft and

mutilation.

Pederson (1990) studied student perceptions of theft

and mutilation. He administered a survey to students at

Emporia State University in Kansas. It was learned that

several assumptions about the causes of periodical and book

mutilation were true: (1) Student dissatisfaction or

unfamiliarity with library services can result in theft and

mutilation; (2) A lack of knowledge about material

replacement costs and time can add to the problem; (3) A

lack of concern for the needs of others often prevents

students from refraining fr.om damaging collections; (4) Few

students even think of library theft and mutilation as a

crime.

Collver (1990) examined the rate of periodical

mutilation in academic libraries in relation to student

numbers. Since 1975, the State University of New York Stony

Brook Library has collected a "ripoff file" of copies of

articles that readers have reported missing from the bound

volumes of periodicals in the general, humanities, and

19

14

social sciences area. The 1978-87 records showed that 9% of

articles had been stolen. Collver found that articles in

the humanities are the least likely to be ripped-off.

Psychology articles in the social science area are the most

likely to be stolen. It was found that mutilation rates in

a subject area can be positively predicted from the number

of students enrolled in related programs.

Schumm (1992) did a study of the kinds of periodicals

most likely to be mutilated. He examined the levels and

patterns of periodical mutilation at three university

libraries located in Texas. A page by page examination of

seven popular and seven scnolarly periodicals from 1981 to

1988 was done. Schumm found that a greater proportion of

popular periodicals were mutilated. This indicates that

undergraduate students were the main source of theft as

faculty and graduate students rely more on scholarly

journals. Schumm (1994) followed this study up two years

later and found similar results the second time.

Theft

Okoye-Ikonta (1981) researched the incidences of book

theft and book mutilation in thirteen Nigerian academic

libraries. It was concluded that there was a high rate of

book theft and book mutilation in Nigerian academic

libraries. Interestingly, Olorunsola (1987) followed up on

academic security concerns in Nigerian academic libraries.

He examined crimes at Ilorin University including book theft

2 0

15

and book mutilation. Olorunsola discovered a relationship

between high rates of security problems and the growth of

Ilorin University. He concluded that rapid growth in the

size of a university and the size of a library collection

will result in a sharp increase in security problems.

Watstein (1983) looked at book mutilation and book

theft and their relationship to electronic security systems.

She conducted a survey of academic libraries to determine if

mutilation rates go up after an electronic security system

is installed. This was discovered to be true. Watstein

stated that patrons are more apt to mutilate a book or

periodical in order to get what they need rather than chance

setting off the electronic security system by taking the

entire book or periodical. As typically only one security

strip is placed in each item, this strategy is successful in

defeating the electronic security system most of the time.

Because of this, theft will go down but Watstein concluded

mutilation rates will rise in a library after an electronic

security system is installed.

People

Sheridan (1980) looked at how library personnel can

influence library security. Sheridan believed that

untrained library staff were responsible for many of the

library security problems. Staff unfamiliar with proper

security techniques and policies make it easy for security

problems to exist and they alienate patrons engaged in

21

16

appropriate behavior. Sheridan concluded that library staff

should be given extensive security training.

The tendency to call for strict enforcement of security

policies assumes that patron behavior is to blame for all

security problems. Mast (1983) disagreed with this

assumption. She looked at the problem of book theft and

mutilation from the standpoint of the sociology of deviance.

Mast argued that the control of unwanted behavior can not be

achieved by increasing the efficiency of library staff or

the use of security technology. Instead, it was put forward

that theft and mutilation are terms which are selectively

applied to ambiguous events. Librarian's are responsible

for much of the security problems in academic libraries

because they tend not to prosecute rule violators. Mast

believed this is due to the interational and institutional

context of librarianship itself.

Kirkpatrick (1984) studied library criminal activity by

looking at two criminological theoretical groupings. One

grouping was psychological theories which concentrated on

individual traits. The other grouping was sociological

theories which examine how societies are structured and how

this structuring might cause crime. Both groups can explain

library crime but it is difficult to determine if one or

both groups accurately explain library crime according to

Kirkpatrick.

22

17

Responses to Security Issues in Academic Libraries

Mutilation

Hendrick and Murfin (1974) studied a large academic

research library to determine its periodical mutilation

rate. They discovered a drop of 23% from a previous study

of the same library. Between the studies, an electronic

security system had been installed. It was concluded that

the security system was having an influence on patron

mutilation activity.

The first step in stopping mutilation is to determine

the extent of it according to Birney and Williams (1985).

The two related historical solutions to the problem such as

education and execution (medieval times!). However, Birney

and Williams wrote that the first step in any prevention

program is o assess what is already mutilated. Librarians

first need to know what is being mutilated so that the right

steps can be taken to correct the problem.

Atwood and Wall (1990) conducted a periodical

mutilation survey that led them to recommend several actions

to cut down on the behavior. These included: (1) Providing

copy and change machines; (2) Making adequate closing

announcements; (3) Replacing mutilated items when possible;

(4) Continuing high quality serials management; (5)

Displaying signs that explain mutilation is a crime; (6)

Purchasing more microform copies; (7) Educating staff; and

(8) Patrolling the library.'

2`i

18

Constantinou (1995) also conducted a periodical

mutilation survey that led her to recommend several actions

to cut down on the behavior. These included: (1) Posting

signs with warnings about

Creating awareness of the

(3) Providing an adequate

machines; (4) Announcing

that patrons

put readings

have time to

on

checking titles

reserve;

mutilation being a crime; (2)

problem by utilizing the media;

number of photocopiers and change

library closing times early so

copy; (5) Encouraging faculty to

and

for damage.

(6) Involving librarians in

Several of the studies under the next subheading are

relevant to librarian responses to periodical and book

mutilation. These included Greenwood and McKean (1985) and

Olsen and Ostler (1985). While both of these concentrate on

preventing book theft, the points they make about electronic

security systems are also true for preventing periodical and

book mutilation.

Theft

The Association of Colleges and Research Libraries Rare

Books and Manuscripts Section (1994) published guidelines

for dealing with theft. The guidelines were divided into

what to do before a theft occurred and what to do after it

was discovered. Guidelines for preventing theft included:

1. Appointing a staff member as a library security officer;

2. Organizing a security planning cc Imittee; 3. Working with

campus public relations office; and 4. Establishing contact

19

with the law enforcement community. Responses to theft

included: 1. Notifying the appropriate authorities; 2.

Collecting evidence; and 3. Publicizing the theft.

Richards (1979) studied the way that academic

institutions treated book thefts. He surveyed academic

librarians in 1978 asking them how they responded to book

theft among their student patrons. The vast majority did

nothing. Richards found a pattern of inaction in the

academic library to book theft. Most librarians felt that

student understanding of the problem was crucial to ending

book theft. Richards discovered that library faculty

believed that academic institutions should openly attempt to

influence student attitudes to eliminate the problem of book

theft.

Greenwood and McKean (1985) examined the effectiveness

of electronic security systems. The main library at the

University of Kentucky conducted a multiphased project to

measure and reduce book loss due to theft. It was found

that after installing an electronic security system, book

loss rates decreased. However, Greenwood and McKean argued

that a manual checking system had some advantages to an

electronic security system. Among the reasons were patron

deviousness in circumventing security systems and the high

cost of electronic surveillance.

Olsen and Ostler (1985) researched academic libraries

that had electronic security systems. Twenty-four academic

20

libraries in the Mountains Plains region of the United

States were surveyed to evaluate the effectiveness of

electronic security systems. It was found that there were

two types of academic libraries using electronic security

systems. One group viewed detection systems as a tool to

prevent uncirculated items from leaving the library.

Another group viewed the system as a means to catch and

punish thieves. Olsen and Ostler concluded that those in

the second group were more successful in protecting

collections.

Winter (1985) examined the design of entrances and

exits in Australian academic libraries. Buildings designed

with only one exit appeared to be more successful in

preventing theft. This was because buildings with few exits

were easier to monitor. The conclusion was that future

library buildings should have only one main exit. Brand

(1980) came to similar conclusions.

Antwi (1989) reported on a study done at the library of

Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University in Nigeria and how the

library dealt with the problem. The study found that

students were the most likely class of patrons to steal

books from the library. The study also found significant

incidences of staff theft. Student and staff residences

were searched and many library books were recovered. As a

result of the study, the library of Abubakar Tafawa Balewa

21

tightened security and introduced identification cards to

users.

Bahr (1989) listed several ideas for preventing theft

from libraries by library employees. These included: (1)

Restricting access to rare materials to those who are

directly responsible for them; (2) Making detailed

inventories of library materials; (3) Insuring all valuable

material; and (5) Verifying that all employees are honest by

instantly investigating any suspicious behavior.

Antwi (1989) recommended several steps for academic

libraries to improve security: (1) A general amnesty week

should be instituted to allow stolen books to be returned

without penalty; (2) Severe penalties should be brought to

bear on offenders such as expulsion for students and

dismissal for staff members and faculty; (3) Library

training programs should explain to students how harmful the

theft of materials is to the library.

Lorenzen (1993) discovered in an Ohio academic library

survey that few libraries were prepared for daily security

problems. The vast majority of libraries (94%) had no

written security policy. Over 42% had no definition at all,

written or otherwise. Lorenzen recommended that academic

libraries create written security documents to guide library

staff.

Despite the problems of security faced by academic

libraries, many librarians feel they are doing an excellent

2'i

22

job in preventing security problems.' Wurzburger (1988)

conducted a survey of academic librarians asking how they

felt they were doing in protecting their collections.

Nearly every institution reported that theft was low.

However, the same librarians believed that security could be

improved. Many of the libraries lacked electronic security

systems and had small staffs. Despite this, the majority of

librarians believed that they were doing an excellent job in

preventing theft. Wurzburger found that academic librarians

believe that increasing the number of staff was the solution

to security concerns such as theft and mutilation.

People

Dealing with difficult and disruptive patrons creates

serious problems in libraries. DeRosa (1980) had several

steps for dealing with problems patrons who were disruptive.

These included; (1) Admonishing the patron; (2) Ordering the

patron from the library; (3) Refusing admittance to patron

in the future; (4) Communicating with parents if patron was

under 18; and (5) getting police or court protection.

Elliott (1982) listed several ways to deal with

disturbed patrons. These ideas included: (1) Remaining calm

and impersonal with the patron; (2) Setting limits with the

patron and sticking to them; (3) Repeating requests to

comply with rules or to leave as often as necessary; (4)

Refusing to argue with outrageous statements; (5) Offering

the patron the option of changing behavior or leaving; (6)

26

23

Avoiding humor and personal remarks; (7) Alerting other

staff to the problem; and (7) Remaining considerate with the

patron.

Another researcher to write about dealing with

disturbed patrons was Gothberg (1988). She wrote that

having established policies for dealing with problem patrons

was important. Gothberg also wrote that having emergency

phone numbers close by was crucial for when these

disturbances occurred. Finally, Gothberg wrote that

librarians needed to develop more assertive behaviors and

attitudes.

Summary

Chapter Two provides a review of the literature in

which material delves into academic library security. The

chapter begins by examining the research into what the

security issues of academic libraries are. Next, the

literature review examines research into the causes of

library security issues. Finally, the chapter examines

literature that covers the response of academic libraries to

these problems. The next chapter is Chapter Three and it

contains an analysis of the literature presented in Chapter

Two. The same headings from Chapter Two are utilized in

Chapter Three to provide clarity.

29

24

CHAPTER THREE

Analysis of the Literature

Introduction

Chapter One includes the problem and purpose of the

study which is to examine the security issues of academic

libraries. In addition, Chapter One defines terms,

discusses limitations and delimitations, and describes the

methodology and the organization of the study. Chapter Two

contains a review of the literature which includes security

issues in academic libraries, causes of security issues in

academic libraries, and responses to security issues in

academic libraries. Chapter Three provides an analysis of

the literature pointing out generalizations,

interpretations, and limitations related to the scope of the

paper. The same headings used in Chapter Two are utilized

in Chapter Three to organize the analysis of the literature.


Mutilation

The mutilation of periodicals and books in academic

libraries is extensively documented in library literature.

Gouke and Murfin (1980) theorized that academic libraries

were the most suspectable kind of library to periodical

mutilation. After studying a large academic research

library, they discovered a periodical mutilation rate of 9%.

They also concluded that an electronic security system would

reduce the rate of periodical mutilation. Lorenzen (1993)

30

25

surveyed academic libraries in Ohio and discovered a

periodical mutilation rate of 2.33%. However, this rate

varied by the type of academic library. University

libraries had a higher rate of periodical mutilation than

seminary libraries. Evidently, while academic libraries are

suspectable to periodical mutilation, this varies by type of

academic institution. Both of these studies are based on

research rather than speculation although the Lorenzen study

was the most extensive of the two.

Book mutilation was studied by Taylor (1981). He

discovered that books often had words highlighted or

underlined. He also was disturbed by editorial comments

that appeared in some books left by patrons. Roberts (1984)

also studied this but he concluded that a lack of bookmarks

caused this problem. This problem shows that even casual

browsing of books, if it leaves permanent marks in the book,

is viewed as a security problem by some librarians. Neither

Taylor or Roberts did much research in this area. Their

articles were based on personal observations rather than

research.

Theft

Theft of library materials has been documented. Otness

and Otness (1988) reported on how valuable map plates were

being stolen by thieves from library special collections.

The two speculated that most of the theft was done by

professional thieves. This is important in that it shows

26

that some people make their living off of stealing from

libraries. These professional thieves appear to target

valuable material only such as rare plates. This study

surveyed libraries in a large portion of the United States

and can be considered to be valid.

O'Neill and Boomgaarden (1995) reported on book

deterioration and loss in Ohio Libraries. They found 12% of

books were missing. Only 3% of this was due to book

deterioration. The two speculated that the rest of the

missing books were the result of theft. Libraries spend a

lot on the conservation of books. Yet, theft seems to be a

bigger problem. This study demonstrates the need for

libraries to spend more money on preventing theft. This

study included the entire state of Ohio and is very well

done.

According to Bahr (1989), some of this theft can be

attributed to library employees. Some of the professional

thieves described by Otness and Otness may actually work in

libraries they steal from. The studies of Bahr and Otness

and Otness are a wake up call for libraries if they are

considered together.

People

People can disrupt the library and cause a security

problem by their behavior. Grof (1984) examined the range

of problem patron behavior by looking at drunk patrons, drug

addicted patrons, mentally disturbed patrons, and juvenile

32

27

delinquent patrons. Grof suggested placing the emphasis on

the denial of rights to those using the library without

disruption rather than the denial of rights to difficult

patrons. Disruptive patrons make it difficult for other

patrons to use the library. Hence, the rights of those

using the library without disruption are being violated by

those who are disrupting the library. Grof concluded it is

thus appropriate to deny rights to those who disrupt the

rights of others in the library. Grof did not examine the

legal consequences of denying rights to disruptive patrons

however. While based on personal observations, this article

detailed a good philosophical path for librarians to pursue

on this topic.

Brashear et al (1981) discovered that public libraries

have more problems with inappropriate behavior than do

academic libraries. This is not surprising. Although

academic libraries are open to the public, fewer patrons use

academic libraries than public libraries. Further, academic

libraries can restrict access to their collections when it

is necessary to do so. Public libraries have to deal with

more patron types than do academic libraries and they have

more difficulty in restricting access to their collections

by the public. This study was conducted throughout the

state of Illinois and due to the large sample can be

considered valid.

3.

28

Delph (1980) wrote about preventing public sex in the

academic library. Delph noted that certain groups use the

library to engage in sexual activities. Libraries often

have areas (such as remote stacks and less frequently used

restrooms) that are easy to use for sexual activities.

These activities inhibit other patrons from fully accessing

parts of the library. This is another security problem

caused by patron behavior that the librarian needs to be

aware of. This article was based on personal observations

but Delph's conclusions are still interesting. Delph and

Grof seem to agree on placing the emphasis on the rights of

those using the library appropriately.

Elliott (1982) wrote about the types of patrons who can

cause problems. This list included those with mentalA

problems such as the schizophrenic, the paranoid, and the

alcoholic. She also noted criminal types such as

exhibitionists, voyeurs, and child molesters. Further,

Elliott considered other potentially disturbed patrons such

as the elderly, children, and angry people. This article

was broad in focus in that virtually every patron is

included in a problem patron category. This article was

based on personal observation rather than research,

although it is still useful for making general

categorizations.

Anderson (1986) focused on the patron who harasses

library staff without specifically doing anything illegal.

34

29

This type of patron can make it difficult for the librarian

to help other patrons and to do other aspects of the job.

As libraries are open to the public, this type of patron is

likely to occur frequently. Again looking to Grof (1984),

the solution to the problem is probably placing the emphasis

on the rights of patrons rather than the rights of the

disturbing patron.


Mutilation

A lot of research has addressed why patrons mutilate

periodicals and books. Hendrick and Murfin (1974), Weiss

(1981), and Pederson (1990) are examples of this. All three

of these studies were based on the results of questionnaires

distributed to library patrons asking about their attitudes

towards mutilation. Hendrick and Murfin (1974) found that

students who mutilated had a less favorable attitude towards

the library than non-mutilators. Weiss discovered that the

pressure to succeed in a high pressure academic environment

causes some patrons to steal and mutilate library material.

Pederson (1990) found that student dissatisfaction with

library services, a lack of knowledge about replacement

costs, a lack of concern for other patrons, and ignorance of

what constitutes criminal activity in regards to mutilation

can all led to periodical mutilation.

All of the studies in the last paragraph help to shape

a picture of the typical mutilator of periodicals in an

3 0

academic library. The mutilator has a negative attitude

towards the library and is enrolled in a competitive

demanding program. Further, the mutilator is dissatisfied

with the library, does not know or does not care about

replacement costs, does not care about the needs of other

patrons, and is not aware that mutilation is a crime.

Collver (1990) examined the mutilation rates of

periodicals in academic libraries in relation to student

numbers. Collver discovered that mutilation rates in a

subject area can be positively predicted from the number of

students enrolled in related programs. Further, Schumm

(1992) studied the type of periodical most likely to be

mutilated. He found that magazines were more likely to be

mutilated than journals. This indicates that undergraduates

are the main mutilators of periodicals as faculty and

graduate students rely primarily on journals.

This allows for the picture of the typical academic

periodical mutilator to be broadened further. The typical

mutilator is enrolled in a high demand program (Weiss, 1981)

that has large enrollment (Collver, 1990). The typical

mutilator is also an undergraduate (Schumm, 1992). All of

these studies have allowed for a very detailed picture of

the academic periodical mutilator to emerge which has proven

very helpful in the area of prevention. As all of these

studies were based on detailed studies, therefore it can be

assumed they are valid.

3b

31

Theft

There has been research dealing with why people steal

from academic libraries. Much of this is closely related to

mutilation. Many of the same conclusions about who

participates in periodical mutilation apply to those who

steal because the two crimes are usually committed by the

same patrons. Thus, research on mutilation can be applied

to research on theft as well.

Olorunsola (1987) studied the incidents of theft in a

Nigerian academic library. He discovered a relationship

between theft and the growth rate of the university as a

whole. He concluded that rapid growth in the size of a

university and in the size of a library collection will

result in a sharp increase in security problems such as

theft. Many librarians see staffing as the key to

preventing security problems (Wurzburger, 1988) and fast

growing academic institutions probably do not hire

additional staff fast enough to deter security problems.

Watstein (1983) contradicted Hendrick and Murfin (1974)

who concluded that the installation of an electronic

security system would reduce periodical mutilation rates.

Perhaps the span in years between the studies explains this.

In 1974, electronic security systems were new. By 1983,

patrons had had the time to figure out how to beat them.

Hence, theft and mutilation decreased at first. However,

37

32

over time, patrons discovered that while theft was hard to

get away with, mutilation was easier to accomplish.

People

Both Sheridan (1980) and Mast (1983) showed that

librarians are themselves responsible for some security

problems. They are not educated as to what security

problems are and how they should handle them. Further,

librarians do not always enforce rules and punish violators.

Lorenzen (1993) found that most libraries do not have

written security guidelines. This further supports what

Mast and Sheridan believed cbout library staff.

Sociological theory has been explored to try to

determine why patrons cause security problems in libraries.

Kirkpatrick (1984) studied library criminal activity by

looking at two criminological theoretical groupings. One

group of theories focused on individual traits. The other

group of theories looked at how societies are structured and

how this structuring might cause crime. Kirkpatrick was not

sure which group of theories explained library crime better.

However, the research of others shows that both theories

explain library crime. Weiss (1981) found that a high

pressure academic environment can cause some to mutilate

which is a sociological theory. Pederson (1990) found that

many students just did not care about the needs of others

which is a psychological theory.

38

33


Mutilation

Several studies have made recommendation for dealing

with periodical mutilation in academic libraries. Hendrick

and Murfin (1974) discovered that installing an electronic

security system will result in a decrease in periodical

mutilation. However, a more recent study (Watstein, 1983)

contradicted this. Installing an electronic security may

cut down on theft but it probably will result in an increase

in periodical and book mutilation. Still, mutilated items

are preferable to missing items in most instances and the

installation of an electronic security system still appears

to be a wise decision.

Atwood and Wall (1990) and Constantinou (1995) had

several suggestions for cutting down on periodical

mutilation. Many of their recommendations centered on

patron education on the issue. Other suggestions included

simple ideas like making sure there are adequate

photocopiers and change machines available and making sure

patrons have time to use them. If patrons have the option

to photocopy cheaply, many of them will not mutilate

periodicals. Birney and Williams (1985) wrote that the

first step in mutilation prevention was assessment of what

had already been mutilated. Researchers in periodical

mutilation have agreed that patron education and assessment

are the keys to preventing periodical mutilation.

3j

34

Theft

Theft of academic library material has also attracted

the attention of researchers. The Association of College

and Research Libraries Rare Book and Manuscript Section

(1094) has published the most comprehensive overview of how

to deal with theft in academic libraries. These guidelines

covered both what to do before a theft occurred and after a

theft occurred. These guidelines stressed heavily educating

the public about the problem both before and after the event

and communicating with law enforcement officials. Richards

(1979) found that library faculty believed that educating

the public about the problem was the solution to the problem

of book theft. It stands to reason that if the average

patron is not familiar with the problem, educating them is a

good idea. It also is reasonable to assume that law

enforcement officials also do not think about crime in

libraries and that communicating with them is a key to

recovering lost items.

The effectiveness of electronic security systems was

studied by Greenwood and McKean (1985). Book loss decreased

after the University of Kentucky installed an electronic

security system. However, the two felt that a manual

checking system had some advantages over an electronic

security system. Greenwood and McKean believed that devious

patrons would find ways to get around electronic security

systems and that physically checking each person as they

40

35

left the library was a superior way of defeating theft.

However, it appears that Greenwood and McKean failed to take

into account the devious patron. If a devious patron can

figure out how to beat an electronic security system, why

can not the same patron figure out how to beat a manual

checking system?

Olsen and Ostler (1985) found there were two types of

academic libraries using electronic security systems. The

groLp that used the systems as a means of punishment were

more successful. Again, Mast's (1983) conclusions about the

importance of librarians taking firm action against

offenders is reinforced.

The design of buildings can help defeat theft attempts

in academic libraries. Both Winter (1985) and Brand (1990)

discuss the importance of this. The fewer exits a library

has the better as far as security issues are concerned.

Buildings with few exits are easier to monitor than

buildings with numerous exits. This is interesting but it

is only useful to those designing new buildings unless

librarians in older buildings are willing to close off

existing exits.

Antwi (1989) and Schumm (1992) found that students were

the most likely class of patrons to steal from the academic

library. Antwi also found significant incidents of staff

theft. In this Nigerian study, searches were conducted of

all student and staff residences to recover lost books.

41

36

This would be highly illegal in the United States of America

without a court order to search. However, Antwi did discuss

the importance .3f identification cards which would also be

helpful in any library if all valid patrons were issued

them.

Most libraries do not have any written definition of

what a security problem is (Lorenzen, 1993). In Lorenzen's

study of academic libraries in Ohio, most did not have a

written security policy. It is reasonable to assume those

findings could be generalized to other states. As such, it

is difficult for many academic libraries in Ohio and beyond

to respond to security problems. Again, the findings of

Richards (1980) and Mast (1983) are reinforced.

Wurzburger (1988) found that most academic librarians

felt they were doing a good job in preventing security

problems. Most libraries felt theft was low. They also

felt that additional staffing would help cut down on the

number of security problems in academic libraries. If

Richards (1980) and Mast (1983) are to be believed, this is

a false assumption as security problems are worse than most

librarians believe.

People

Research has been conducted into ways to control the

people who use libraries as well. DeRosa (1980) and Antwi

(1989) had several suggestions including the institution of

a general amnesty week, enforcing severe penalties, and

42

37

library education about the problem. Again, it is

interesting that security problems in Nigeria are similar to

the problems in the United States of America. Patrons seem

to be the same the world over. Elliott (1982) listed ways

that library staff could deal with disturbed patrons such as

courtesy, firmness, and calmness. Gothberg (1988) stressed

having policies to deal with issues as well as developing

staff assertiveness.

43

38

CHAPTER FOUR

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

Chapter One includes the problem and purpose of the

study which is to examine the security issues of academic

libraries. In addition, Chapter One defines terms,

discusses limitations and delimitations, and describes the

methodology and the organization of the study. Chapter Two

contains a review of the literature which includes security

issues in academic libraries, causes of security issues in

academic libraries, and responses to security issues in

academic libraries. Chapter Three provides an analysis of

the literature pointing out generalizations,

interpretations, and limitations related to the scope of the

paper. The same headings used in Chapter Two are utilized

in Chapter Three to organize the analysis of the literature.

Finally, Chapter Four provides a summary of the study,

conclusions, and recommendations.

Summary

The study examined the problem of security issues of

academic libraries. The research questions looked at the

following: what type of security problems exist in the

libraries of institutions of higher education, what are the

causes of the security problems in the libraries of the

institutions of higher education, and how are libraries of

institutions of higher education dealing with security

44

39

problems. The purpose of the study is to discuss an

integrated approach to dealing with security issues in

academic libraries, both to spare libraries from expensive

replacement costs and to protect library patrons.


The study begins by pointing out many of the security

issues that academic libraries deal with. The mutilation of

periodicals, the theft of library materials, and difficult

patrons are all reoccurring problems. Academic libraries

are the most vulnerable type of library to periodical and

book mutilation. Book theft is a larger problem for

libraries than book deterioration. Professional thieves are

a particular problem because they target ppecial collections

of valuable materials. Patrons can also pose problems for

an academic library by their behavior which can be

obnoxious, harassing, or criminal. Library staff also cause

problems by not knowing what security problems are and by

not enforcing rules.


A portrait of the periodical mutilator in academic

libraries has emerged. The average mutilator is an

undergraduate in a high enrollment, high stress program who

is unhappy with library services. Further, this patron does

not know how expensive it is to replace mutilated material

and is not aware that periodical mutilation is a crime.

45

40

Finally, this patron does not care about the needs of

others.

Theft in an academic library tends to increase af,_ a

library and university increase in size. Electronic

security systems can decrease theft. However, research has

found that electronic security systems increase the level of

mutilation at the same time theft decreases.

Several library theorist blame library staff for much

of the problems academic libraries have with security

issues. This is due both to library staff not being trained

properly and not enforcing rules consistently. Patrons may

cause security problems for either psychological or

sociological reasons.


Academic libraries are taking steps to deal with

mutilation and theft. Many are installing electronic

security systems, although the results of this are mixed and

effectiveness depends on how a library uses the system.

Educating patrons about the problems is a recommended

solution. It was also found that designing libraries with

fewer exits and requiring patrons to have identification

cards can cut down on security problems. Difficult patrons

have been studied as well and most researchers recommend

firmness with these patrons so that the rights of other

patrons to use the library are not effected.

46

41

Finally, the study looks at how librarians are

responding to these issues. Most academic libraries do not

have written security policies and library staff have

difficulty in identifying and dealing with security issues.

Most librarians believe however that they are doing a good

job of protecting library collections. Librarians also

believe that staffing is the key to solving the issue.

Conclusions

The review of the literature concerning the security

issues of academic libraries shows that academic lthraries

are dealing with several problems. These include the

mutilation of periodicals and books, the theft of 'library

material, and handling behavioral problems of patrons.

Researchers have looked at the problems, tried to decide

what causes them, and attempted to offer solutions.

While there are multiple causes for security problems,

studies have shown that most mutilation and theft is done by

undergraduates who are in large, difficult programs. These

patrons do not understand replacement costs, do not care

about the needs of others, and do not know they are

committing a crime when they mutilate or steal from the

library. Various authors have urged educating this type of

patron to cut down on security problems.

It also appears that library staff cause some problems

by not knowing what security problems are and how to deal

with them. They also do not always enforce the rules

47

42

consistently. This problem may be making the security

problems worse.

Librarians are taking steps to deal with security

issues. They are installing electronic security systems

although the effectiveness of these systems is not yet fully

known. They are addressing areas such as building design

and the use of identification cards as well as trying to

deal with problems. Finally, education is being used by

some to cope with the issues.

Recommendations

Practice

1. Librarians need to make sure that their libraries

have written security policies.

2. Library staff need to be trained to recognize and

deal with security problems when they occur.

3. Librarians need to incorporate into patron

instruction the importance of not mutilating and stealing in

the library.

4. Administrators need to make sure that libraries are

staffed properly.

Research

The topic of security issues in academic libraries

needs further research.

1. Further research needs to be conducted on the

effectiveness of electronic security systems to determine

48

43

whether they decrease theft and mutilation and whether they

are superior to a manual checking system.

2. Further research needs to be done to determine the

extent to which staff are responsible for security issues

because they do not know and enforce the rules and whether

increasing staff training has any effect on this.

3. Research needs to be conducted to determine the

extent to which libraries are educating their patrons on

security issues and whether educational programs are

effective.

44

References

Allen, S. (1990). Theft in libraries or archives. College &

Research Libraries, 50(10), 939-43.

Anderson, A. J. (1986). The trouble with Larry. Library

Journal, 111(11), 45-7.

Antwi, I. K. (July, 1989). The problem of library security:

The Bauchi experience. International Library Review,

21, 363-72.

Association of Colleges and Research Libraries Rare Books

and Manuscripts Section. (1994). Guidelines regarding

thefts in libraries. College & Research Libraries News,

55(11), 641-6.

Association of Colleges and Research Libraries Rare Books

and Manuscripts Section. (1989). Guidelines for the

security of rare books and other special collections: A

draft. College & Research Libraries News, 50,(5), 397-

401.

Atwood, T., & Wall, C. (1990). A case study of periodical

mutilation in a university serials collection. Library

& Archival Security, 10(1), 35-41.

Bahr, A. H. (1989). The thief in our midst. Library &

Archival Security, 9(3/4), 77-81.

Birney, A. E., & Williams, S. R. (1985). Mutilation and the

folklore of academic librarianship. Library & Archival

Security, 7(3/4), 41-7.

Jr 0

45

Bloom, B. (Fall, 1994). Mutilation of library materials:

Campus concerns. New Jersey Libraries, 27, 15-7.

Brand, M. (1984). Security for Libraries: People, Buildings.

Collections. Chicago: American Library Association.

Brand, M. (1980). Security of academic library buildings.

Library & Archival Security, 3(1), 39-47.

Brashear, J. K., Malone, J. J., & Thorton-Jaringe, J.

(1981). Problem patrons: The other kind of library

security. Illinois Libraries, 63(4), 343-51.

Collver, M. (1990). Subsequent demand for ripped-off journal

articles. The Reference Librarian no. 23/24, 347-66.

Constantinou, C. (1995). Destruction of knowledge: A study

of journal mutilation at a large university library.

College & Research Libraries, 56(11), 497-507.

Delph, E. D. (1980). Preventing public sex in library

settings. Library & Archival Security, 3(2), 17-26.

DeRosa, F. J. (1980). The disruptive patron. Library &


Elliott, J. (1982). Disturbed clients. Unabashed Librarian

no. 44, 16-7.

Goldberg, M. (1993). The neverending saga of library theft.

Library & Archival Security, 12(1),.87-100.

Gothberg, H. M. (1987). Managing difficult people: Patrons

(and others). The Reference Librarian no. 19, 269-84.

46

Gouke, M. N., & Murfin, M. (September 15, 1980). Periodical

mutilation: The insidious disease. Library Journal,

105, 1795-7.

Greenwood, L., & McKean, H. (1985). EffectiN,e measurement

and reduction of book loss in an academic library.

Journal of Academic Librarianship, 11(5), 275-83.

Grof, A. (1984). Crazy Willie revisited. Library

Journa1,109(16), 1823-4.

Hendrick, C. & Murfin, M. (1975). Ripoffs tell their story:

Interviews with mutilators in a university library.

Journal of Academic Librarianship, 1(1), 8-12.

Hendrick, C. & Murfin, M. (1974). Project library ripoff: A

study of periodical mutilation in a university library.

College & Research Libraries, 35(6), 402-4.

Hines, T. (1975). Theft, mutilation, and loss-to-use ratio.

Library Security Newsletter, 1(3), 1-4.

Kirkpatrick, J. T. (1984). Explaining crime and disorder in

libraries. Library Trends, 3(1), 13-28.

Lincoln, A. J. (1984). Crime in the Library: A Study of

Patterns, Impact, and Security. New York: Bowker.

Lily, R. (1991). Ripoffs revisited: Periodical mutilation in

a university research library. Library & Archival

Security, 11(1), 43-70.

Lincoln, A. J., & Lincoln, C. Z. (1986). Library crime and

security: An international perspective. Library &


52

47

Lorenzen, M. (1993). Security Problems of Ohio Academic

Libraries. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, no. ED

367341.

Luke, J. M. (1991). The mutilation of periodicals in a mid-

size university library. The Serials Librarian, 20, 95-

109.

Martin, R. (January, 1973). Microforms and periodicals

mutilation. Microform Review, 2, 6-8.

Mast, S. (1983). Ripping off and ripping out: Book theft and

mutilation from academic libraries. Library & Archival

Security, 5(4), 31-51.

Msuya, J. (1991). Serials mutilation hazard at the

University of Dar es Salaam Library in Tanzania.


Obiagwu, M. C. (December, 1992). Library abuse in academic

institutions: A comparative study of University of Port

Harcourt in Nigeria and King Fahad University of

Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia. International

Information & Library Review, 24, 291-305.

Olorunsola, R. (1987). Crimes in academic libraries:

University of Ilorin library experience. Library

Scientist, 14, 29-43.

Olsen, R. J., & Ostler, L. J. (1985). Get tough on theft:

Electronic theft detection. Library & Archival

Security, 7(3/4), 67-77.

53

48

Okoye-Ikonta, G. I. (1981). Book thefts and mutilation in

Nigerian university libraries. Library Scientist, 8,

89-100.

O'Neill, E. T., & Boomgaarden, W. L. (1995). Book

deterioration and loss: Magnitude and characteristics

in Ohio libraries. Library Resources & Technical

Services, 39(4), 394-408.

Otness, H. M., & Otness, H. (August, 1988). Going plating-

Stealing maps from libraries. Western Association of

Map Libraries Information Bulletin, 19, 206-10.

Pedersen, T. L. (1990). Theft and mutilation of library

materials. College & Research Libraries, 51(3), 120-8.

Pinzelik, B. P. (1984). Monitoring book losses in an

academic library. Library & Archival Security, 6(4), 1-

12.

Ragains, P. (1991). Availability and mutilation of U.S.

Geological Survey publications: An analytic study at

Montana State University. The Reference Librarian, no.

32, 247-57.

Richards, J. H. (1979). Missing in action. Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 5(5), 266-9.

Richards, S., & Lister, L. (1991). An Exploration of

Vandalism/Food/Drink Issue in Academic Libraries.

Emporia, Kansas: Kaleidoscope Emporia State University

Press.

54

0

49

Roberts, F. X, (March 14, 1994). Bookmarks and the abuse of

books. AB Bookman's Weekly, 93, 1125-6+.

Sampson, K. J. (1982). Disturbed and disturbing patrons:

Handling the problem patron. Nebraska Library

Association Ouarterly, 12(1), 9-11.

Schumm, R. W. (1994). Periodical mutilation revisited: A

two-year follow up study. The Serials Librarian,

25(1/2), 1-6.

Schumm, R. W. (1992). Patterns of periodical mutilation at

three academic libraries. Serials Librarian, 21(4),

147-56.

Seleth, J. P. (1991). The objects of his devotion: G. D.

Chesire, bibliophile and book thief. College & Research

Libraries News, 52(11), 712-5.

Sheridan, L. W. (1980). People in libraries as security

agents. Library & Archival Security, 3(1), 57-61.

Smith, F. E. (1984). Supplementary deterrents in library

security. Library & Archival Security, 6(1), 49-57.

Smith, F. E. (1984). Questionable strategies in library

security studies. Library & Archival Security, 6(3),

43-53.

Stuart, M. (Fall, 1988). The crime of Dr. Pilcher: A

scholar-biblioklept in imperial Russia and his European

predecessors. Libraries & Culture, al, 401-26.

Taylor, D. (1981). Enemies of books. College & Research

Libraries News, 41(9), 317-9.

C.

a

50

Trinkaus-Randall, G. (1989). Preserving special collections

through internal security. College & Research

Libraries, 50(7), 448-54.

Van Nort, S. (1994). Archival and library theft: The problem

that will not go away. Library & Archival Security,

12(2), 25-49.

Varner, C. (1983). Journal mutilation in academic libraries.


Varller, C. (1983). The Causes, Measurements,and Prevention

of Journal Mutilation in an Academic Library. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service, no. ED 234817.

Wall, C. (1985) Inventory what you might expect to be

missing. Library & Archival Security., 7(2), 27.

Watstein, S. B. (1983). Book mutilation: An unwelcome by-

product of electronic security systems. Library &

Archival Security, 5(1), 11-33.

Weiss, D. (1981). Book theft and mutilation in a large urban

university library. College & Research Libraries,

42(4), 341-7.

Winter, K. (1985). Entrance/exit design of Australian

academic libraries since 1959. Australian College

Libraries, 3(4), 167-75.

Wurzburger, M. (Spring, 1988). Current security practices in

college and university special collections. Rare Books

& Manuscript Librarianship, 3, 43-57.

document resume ed 396 765 ir 055 938 alithor lorenzen ... · that some of these same problems...

Documents